About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
better have one. (laughter) >> do like ronald reagan? do you like ronald reagan? >> of course i do. >> i'll make you ronald reagan by you, and i can go in anderson, south carolina and get a social security saying you're ronald reagan. if you're an employer and a hispanic person comes to you with a card that says i'm ronald reagan, you say you don't look like ronald reagan, you can get sued. so what i want to do is have documents that can be verified for employment. i think we should all turn our social security card into a biometric document that can't be faked and you go back to roger ailes to renew your contract, you need to pay mike more. >> say that one more time. >> roger ailes, mike huckabee knocks it out the park on saturday night. >> there you go, there you go. >> when you go back to negotiate with roger, you have a document thats can prove quickly that you're mike huckabee. if you did that one thing along with securing the border, it would be harder than heck to hire an illegal immigrant. and if they do, they should lose their business and go to jail. >> it sounds reasonable, th
was it, 1982 or 1983, back in the 1980's, tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and made adjustments to social security that saved the program. that's my point. sometimes you need to adjust and change to save the very thing you care most about. and so tip o'neill didn't sell out the democratic party by embracing that agreement. the democrats in congress, many of them very progressive at that time who supported it, didn't work traders to the party. if we do it in a responsible way, a balanced and doesn't just gut the programs and just not all entitlement reform with no revenue, i think the base of the party and leaders and organized labor will understand. they also know the alternative is doing nothing, with bad damage to jobs and the economy. and ultimately insolvency of these programs themselves, or. b, the right wing of the republicans are coming in and taking over because we have done nothing to solve the problem and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack. he's our first phone call for the senator. republican. go ahead. caller: mr. bayh, one question
earned that money and ronald reagan raised the age and that gave this this surplus and they robbed it out of there. >> thanks. nathaniel says in my opinion if we're going to cut the first thing to go is foreign aid. well there's another spending item. front page of the "washington post" dealing with the military. headline. four star lifestyle. points out the scandal involving david a try us has prompted new scrutiny of the general's lifestyle. the overseeing of troops around the world and these people enjoy perks. palatial homes and people to track their schedule and these with the jump page article the fog of more. do perks collar generals with a photograph of general a try us that would have been the equivalent of a presidential motorcade and then another one on dwight eisenhower on the 17th hole in scotland and the perks given to generals in the army and navy. admirals in the navy and others in the u.s. military. william from florida. democrat line. good morning. >> good morning. yes. i'll say instead of cutting entitlements like social security or medicaid. with social security, it's
by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic house after a resounding second term victory. as did bill clinton with the republican controlled house and republican controlled senate after a more resounding second term victory then president obama. both examples, both of them, illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected by founding his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans are not willing to do things his way he will not do anything at all. if the president is serious, he will follow the lead of president reagan and clinton. if he is really serious, he will put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic resolution that can pass a republican controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he will have the support of his own party and a willing partner in hours. the american people will criticize of relief knowing not only that we have avoi
that divided government sometimes has done very important things for the country. think of ronald reagan and tip o'neill reforming social security. ronald reagan and tip o'neill doing the last comprehensive tax reform. bill clinton and republican congress doing welfare reform and balancing the budget. we look forward to making this divided government productive for the american people. and we have, of course, as everyone well knows, a lot of challenges here at the end of the year. i'll be meeting with the president and the other leadership on friday to talk about the way forward. and we look forward to being a part of the solution to these significant problems. it's my plesh shoe now to turn to our newly elected whip, senator john cornyn of texas. >> thanks, mitch. it's an honor to be elected by my colleagues to serve as the whip. the assistant leader on the republican side. as leader mcconnell said, we have a lot of very difficult work to do, but we are committed to working with our colleagues across the aisle to solving the nation's urgent problems. we know what those are in the lame d
to make a comment about this benghazi thing. republicans have made such a big deal out of it. ronald reagan sent over 200 marines to their death and there was no public outrage. where is the republican outrage? only because of obama do we get this kind of reaction. thank you. host: edward, from miami, florida, this morning. another editorial, from being west, former infantryman. host: that is from the former assistant secretary of defense. we're taking your calls on this issue. b.j., good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, who is joe kelly? why would brought well be sending her threatening e-mails? -- broadwell be sending her a threat in e-mails? host: do you think the senate needs to hold a hearing on this? caller: absolutely. i look forward to his testimony under oath this time, rather than giving the cock and bull story from before. it is all because of the video tape. now he cannot be blackmailed by anyone. host: joe kelly is described as a 37-year-old social liaison at the air force base in tampa. host: did he have an affair with her? is that when he was so upset? --
is the payback from party leaders? guest: there is change and then there is change. tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and saved the program. sometimes you need to adjust to change the thing you care most about. tip o'neill did not sell off the democratic party by embracing that. if we do it in a responsible way that doesn't gut the program, i think the base of the party will understand. the alternative is doing nothing with bad damage to the economy, or the right wing of the republicans coming in and taking over and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack in kentucky. caller: i have one question. can you guarantee -- guest: i thought you're going to ask why indiana university and kentucky and not playing basketball this year. for the first time they are now playing and we are rivals. i cannot talk about classified information on tv. things like stinger missiles are very problematic and we do everything we can to keep track of them. muammar gaddafi stockpiles of weapons, surface- to-air missiles and we're doing everything to track those down and secure them.
examples of presidents who solved big problems by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic-led house after a far more resounding second-term victory than president obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner
and do something good, something really good for the country. ronald reagan understood this. bill clinton understood this. and president obama seemed to understand it too in december of 2010. so i'll say it again. the only way we succeed is if the president steps up and leaders. it starts by showing that he's serious about success. and let's be clear, an opening bid of $1.6 trillion in new taxes just isn't serious. it's more than simpson-bowles or any other bipartisan commission has called for. it's been unanimously rejected in the house and senate. it's twice as much as the white house seemed ready to agree to during last summer's debt ceiling talks. and looked at in the context of the spending cuts yet to be enacted from the president's other proposals, it amounts to about 20 cents in cuts for every new dollar in tax hikes. in other words, no cuts at all. it's a joke. a joke. look, people i talk to across kentucky, they don't want any more political fights. th*e'd like to -- they'd like to see us get somewhere. they want the two parties to work together to find a solution to our fiscal
-- ronald reagan as president -- worked together to make our tax code more logical, more equitable, and more efficient. ten years later, divided government produced a sweeping overhaul of our welfare system, under then-president bill clinton. conservative republicans joined with a democratic president to help millions of lower-income people break free of the cycle of dependency and despair. of course, we know we've had divided government. as i said earlier, we really had a status quo election in that sense. we've had divided government since january 2011 when republicans regained the majority in the house of representatives. the result over the last two years, sadly, it has produced legislative stalemates and bitter recriminations. why should anybody expect that things will be different going forward? i think, mr. president, what's different now from then is that republicans and democrats alike recognize we are at a crossroads, that our current fiscal path is unsustainable, and that we're either going to send the economy back into a recession -- unless we deal with the fiscal cliff and the s
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)